The
state is defying international courts, the UN, and the Obama
administration by denying Vienna Convention rights to a Mexican
prisoner. Does it matter?

Reuters

On Thursday, Texas is scheduled to
execute its seventh prisoner this year. While anti-death penalty
advocates have rallied against all the executions, this particular case
has also drawn protests
from former judges and diplomats, the UN, and the Obama administration
-- not out of opposition to capital punishment, but concern for
America's place in the international community. As Thursday draws
nearer, mounting pressure on Texas to stay the execution underscores
both the U.S.'s global isolation in its commitment to the death penalty
and the highly charged domestic politics of navigating international
law.

Humberto Leal Garcia, Jr. is a Mexican citizen who was sentenced to death
by a Texas jury in 1994 for rape and murder. Texas provided Garcia with
court-appointed lawyers, but at no point during his arrest or trial did
the state inform him of his right to contact the Mexican consulate,
which could have provided him legal aid. This right is guaranteed by the
Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, signed by the U.S., Mexico,
and 171 other nations. In its treatment of Garcia, Texas was in
violation of international law.

Whether or not Garcia's
sentencing would have been different with the help of Mexican lawyers,
Texas's decision puts the U.S. in a difficult position abroad -- many
worry that, if we do not respect the consular rights of foreign
nationals, other countries will have less incentive to respect those of
our citizens.

Euna Lee, an American journalist who, along with
her colleague Laura Ling, was held captive in North Korea for five
months in 2009, has called
the Vienna Convention a "lifeline" that helped secure her release. Lee
remembers the "sense of security" she gained from knowing that "someone
outside of North Korea was monitoring my case. The prompt consular
access, I believe, protected me from any physical mistreatment by my
captors."

Even Iran has given
consular access, if briefly, to the two American hikers in its custody,
something Texas has denied Garcia. And during the Iranian hostage
crisis in 1979, the U.S. sued Iran in the International Court of Justice
for violating the same Vienna Convention that Texas is now defying. The
ICJ ruled in America's favor, just as it would rule in Mexico's favor 24 years later, when the Mexican government sued the U.S. for sentencing Garcia and 50 other Mexican citizens to death without honoring their consular rights.

That 2004 decision has reverberated throughout the U.S. legal system,
with President George W. Bush instructing Texas to review the
convictions and to reevaluate the sentencing of Jose Medellin, a Mexican
citizen in the same position as Garcia. In 2008, the Supreme Court ruled
that states were not obligated to comply with the Vienna Convention,
and that only Congress -- not the president -- could force them to obey
the treaty. Later that year, Medellin was executed.

With
Texas barreling toward another execution on Thursday, Congress will not
be able to intervene in time for Garcia. Last Friday, the Obama
administration asked
the Supreme Court to stay the execution until Congress had time to vote
on legislation that would require states to comply with the Vienna
Convention, thus obligating Texas to reevaluate Garcia's case. Solicitor
General Donald Verrilli, Jr. stressed
the diplomatic implications of the execution -- that compliance with
international treaties helps the U.S. protect its citizens abroad and
advance its foreign policy interests. Backtracking on a major global
agreement, some worry, could puncture U.S. integrity in future
international negotiations, potentially making other countries less
willing to sign onto treaties they fear the U.S. may not honor.

Also on Friday, the UN high commissioner for human rights solicited Texas Governor Rick Perry on Garcia's behalf. So far, Perry has not wavered and the Court has not yet responded.

The international reaction to Garcia's case demonstrates just how isolated the U.S. is in its support of the death penalty. According to Hands Off Cain,
an anti-death penalty organization, only 43 of the nearly 200 countries
that participate in the UN routinely use capital punishment. In the
U.S., 34 states execute prisoners.

Texas's commitment to its sentencing, meanwhile, signals the
fundamental distaste many Americans seem to feel for international
governance. Last year's Tea Party wave ushered in a series of state legislature attempts
to ban the application of foreign legal codes and international
mandates in U.S. courts. Though most of these measures did not pass,
they provided a rallying point in many conservative circles. As Governor
Perry contemplates a run
for the Republican presidential nomination, a high-profile rejection of
the international community and the Obama administration may be one of
his most powerful assets.

The Garcia case has also revealed an
uncomfortable truth about international law -- while often influential,
its scope is fundamentally limited, especially in the U.S. When the ICJ
directly instructed Texas to change its policies, the state refused, and
the Supreme Court sided with Texas over its international cousin. In
principle, even-handed arbitration of international disputes sounds
reasonable. But, in practice, geopolitics -- and, sometimes, domestic
politics -- win the day. After all, the U.S. has so far been able to
brush aside the Vienna Convention without sacrificing its own interests.

Garcia's execution may spark enough outrage to spur other
countries to stand up to the world's superpower -- or it may, like
Medellin's, be archived as an interesting legal dispute with little
real-world consequence.

About the Author

Most Popular

Even when a dentist kills an adored lion, and everyone is furious, there’s loftier righteousness to be had.

Now is the point in the story of Cecil the lion—amid non-stop news coverage and passionate social-media advocacy—when people get tired of hearing about Cecil the lion. Even if they hesitate to say it.

But Cecil fatigue is only going to get worse. On Friday morning, Zimbabwe’s environment minister, Oppah Muchinguri, called for the extradition of the man who killed him, the Minnesota dentist Walter Palmer. Muchinguri would like Palmer to be “held accountable for his illegal action”—paying a reported $50,000 to kill Cecil with an arrow after luring him away from protected land. And she’s far from alone in demanding accountability. This week, the Internet has served as a bastion of judgment and vigilante justice—just like usual, except that this was a perfect storm directed at a single person. It might be called an outrage singularity.

Writing used to be a solitary profession. How did it become so interminably social?

Whether we’re behind the podium or awaiting our turn, numbing our bottoms on the chill of metal foldout chairs or trying to work some life into our terror-stricken tongues, we introverts feel the pain of the public performance. This is because there are requirements to being a writer. Other than being a writer, I mean. Firstly, there’s the need to become part of the writing “community”, which compels every writer who craves self respect and success to attend community events, help to organize them, buzz over them, and—despite blitzed nerves and staggering bowels—present and perform at them. We get through it. We bully ourselves into it. We dose ourselves with beta blockers. We drink. We become our own worst enemies for a night of validation and participation.

Forget credit hours—in a quest to cut costs, universities are simply asking students to prove their mastery of a subject.

MANCHESTER, Mich.—Had Daniella Kippnick followed in the footsteps of the hundreds of millions of students who have earned university degrees in the past millennium, she might be slumping in a lecture hall somewhere while a professor droned. But Kippnick has no course lectures. She has no courses to attend at all. No classroom, no college quad, no grades. Her university has no deadlines or tenure-track professors.

Instead, Kippnick makes her way through different subject matters on the way to a bachelor’s in accounting. When she feels she’s mastered a certain subject, she takes a test at home, where a proctor watches her from afar by monitoring her computer and watching her over a video feed. If she proves she’s competent—by getting the equivalent of a B—she passes and moves on to the next subject.

The Wall Street Journal’s eyebrow-raising story of how the presidential candidate and her husband accepted cash from UBS without any regard for the appearance of impropriety that it created.

The Swiss bank UBS is one of the biggest, most powerful financial institutions in the world. As secretary of state, Hillary Clinton intervened to help it out with the IRS. And after that, the Swiss bank paid Bill Clinton $1.5 million for speaking gigs. TheWall Street Journal reported all that and more Thursday in an article that highlights huge conflicts of interest that the Clintons have created in the recent past.

The piece begins by detailing how Clinton helped the global bank.

“A few weeks after Hillary Clinton was sworn in as secretary of state in early 2009, she was summoned to Geneva by her Swiss counterpart to discuss an urgent matter. The Internal Revenue Service was suing UBS AG to get the identities of Americans with secret accounts,” the newspaper reports. “If the case proceeded, Switzerland’s largest bank would face an impossible choice: Violate Swiss secrecy laws by handing over the names, or refuse and face criminal charges in U.S. federal court. Within months, Mrs. Clinton announced a tentative legal settlement—an unusual intervention by the top U.S. diplomat. UBS ultimately turned over information on 4,450 accounts, a fraction of the 52,000 sought by the IRS.”

There’s no way this man could be president, right? Just look at him: rumpled and scowling, bald pate topped by an entropic nimbus of white hair. Just listen to him: ranting, in his gravelly Brooklyn accent, about socialism. Socialism!

And yet here we are: In the biggest surprise of the race for the Democratic presidential nomination, this thoroughly implausible man, Bernie Sanders, is a sensation.

He is drawing enormous crowds—11,000 in Phoenix, 8,000 in Dallas, 2,500 in Council Bluffs, Iowa—the largest turnout of any candidate from any party in the first-to-vote primary state. He has raised $15 million in mostly small donations, to Hillary Clinton’s $45 million—and unlike her, he did it without holding a single fundraiser. Shocking the political establishment, it is Sanders—not Martin O’Malley, the fresh-faced former two-term governor of Maryland; not Joe Biden, the sitting vice president—to whom discontented Democratic voters looking for an alternative to Clinton have turned.

During the multi-country press tour for Mission Impossible: Rogue Nation, not even Jon Stewart has dared ask Tom Cruise about Scientology.

During the media blitz for Mission Impossible: Rogue Nation over the past two weeks, Tom Cruise has seemingly been everywhere. In London, he participated in a live interview at the British Film Institute with the presenter Alex Zane, the movie’s director, Christopher McQuarrie, and a handful of his fellow cast members. In New York, he faced off with Jimmy Fallon in a lip-sync battle on The Tonight Show and attended the Monday night premiere in Times Square. And, on Tuesday afternoon, the actor recorded an appearance on The Daily Show With Jon Stewart, where he discussed his exercise regimen, the importance of a healthy diet, and how he still has all his own hair at 53.

Stewart, who during his career has won two Peabody Awards for public service and the Orwell Award for “distinguished contribution to honesty and clarity in public language,” represented the most challenging interviewer Cruise has faced on the tour, during a challenging year for the actor. In April, HBO broadcast Alex Gibney’s documentary Going Clear, a film based on the book of the same title by Lawrence Wright exploring the Church of Scientology, of which Cruise is a high-profile member. The movie alleges, among other things, that the actor personally profited from slave labor (church members who were paid 40 cents an hour to outfit the star’s airplane hangar and motorcycle), and that his former girlfriend, the actress Nazanin Boniadi, was punished by the Church by being forced to do menial work after telling a friend about her relationship troubles with Cruise. For Cruise “not to address the allegations of abuse,” Gibney said in January, “seems to me palpably irresponsible.” But in The Daily Show interview, as with all of Cruise’s other appearances, Scientology wasn’t mentioned.

An attack on an American-funded military group epitomizes the Obama Administration’s logistical and strategic failures in the war-torn country.

Last week, the U.S. finally received some good news in Syria:.After months of prevarication, Turkey announced that the American military could launch airstrikes against Islamic State positions in Syria from its base in Incirlik. The development signaled that Turkey, a regional power, had at last agreed to join the fight against ISIS.

The announcement provided a dose of optimism in a conflict that has, in the last four years, killed over 200,000 and displaced millions more. Days later, however, the positive momentum screeched to a halt. Earlier this week, fighters from the al-Nusra Front, an Islamist group aligned with al-Qaeda, reportedly captured the commander of Division 30, a Syrian militia that receives U.S. funding and logistical support, in the countryside north of Aleppo. On Friday, the offensive escalated: Al-Nusra fighters attacked Division 30 headquarters, killing five and capturing others. According to Agence France Presse, the purpose of the attack was to obtain sophisticated weapons provided by the Americans.

The Islamic State is no mere collection of psychopaths. It is a religious group with carefully considered beliefs, among them that it is a key agent of the coming apocalypse. Here’s what that means for its strategy—and for how to stop it.

What is the Islamic State?

Where did it come from, and what are its intentions? The simplicity of these questions can be deceiving, and few Western leaders seem to know the answers. In December, The New York Times published confidential comments by Major General Michael K. Nagata, the Special Operations commander for the United States in the Middle East, admitting that he had hardly begun figuring out the Islamic State’s appeal. “We have not defeated the idea,” he said. “We do not even understand the idea.” In the past year, President Obama has referred to the Islamic State, variously, as “not Islamic” and as al-Qaeda’s “jayvee team,” statements that reflected confusion about the group, and may have contributed to significant strategic errors.

Some say the so-called sharing economy has gotten away from its central premise—sharing.

This past March, in an up-and-coming neighborhood of Portland, Maine, a group of residents rented a warehouse and opened a tool-lending library. The idea was to give locals access to everyday but expensive garage, kitchen, and landscaping tools—such as chainsaws, lawnmowers, wheelbarrows, a giant cider press, and soap molds—to save unnecessary expense as well as clutter in closets and tool sheds.

The residents had been inspired by similar tool-lending libraries across the country—in Columbus, Ohio; in Seattle, Washington; in Portland, Oregon. The ethos made sense to the Mainers. “We all have day jobs working to make a more sustainable world,” says Hazel Onsrud, one of the Maine Tool Library’s founders, who works in renewable energy. “I do not want to buy all of that stuff.”

A controversial treatment shows promise, especially for victims of trauma.

It’s straight out of a cartoon about hypnosis: A black-cloaked charlatan swings a pendulum in front of a patient, who dutifully watches and ping-pongs his eyes in turn. (This might be chased with the intonation, “You are getting sleeeeeepy...”)

Unlike most stereotypical images of mind alteration—“Psychiatric help, 5 cents” anyone?—this one is real. An obscure type of therapy known as EMDR, or Eye Movement Desensitization and Reprocessing, is gaining ground as a potential treatment for people who have experienced severe forms of trauma.

Here’s the idea: The person is told to focus on the troubling image or negative thought while simultaneously moving his or her eyes back and forth. To prompt this, the therapist might move his fingers from side to side, or he might use a tapping or waving of a wand. The patient is told to let her mind go blank and notice whatever sensations might come to mind. These steps are repeated throughout the session.